Our work introduces a new voting paradigm about which many questions
remain unanswered and many variations and extensions remain to be
explored. Listed below are several areas that look especially
attractive for future exploration.

Acceptability. We conducted a limited acceptability study by
surveying a group of well-educated people about one type of DSV.
Further work is needed to gauge the acceptability of other types of
DSV and the acceptability of DSV among a more general population. In
addition, we recommend conducting a study in which a professional
organization or other voting body conducts a DSV election shadowing an
actual election after its members are educated about DSV and their
current voting system.

DSV combined with approval voting or other voting rules. We have
limited our study to DSV systems that use the plurality voting rule.
Our simulations with many alternatives (especially our trajectory
selection simulations) highlighted the fact that the plurality rule
prevents the selection of an alternative that does not receive a large
number of first-place votes, regardless of the number of second-place
votes that alternative receives. DSV systems that use an approval
voting rule would not have this problem. The combination of DSV with
approval voting, Borda count voting, and other voting rules should be
explored.

Tie-breaking rules. We introduced the concept of tie-breaking
rules to augment the expected-utility model of voting. However, more
work is needed to determine what types of tie-breaking rules are
useful in actual voting situations and the impacts of these rules on
the behavior of DSV systems.

Uncertainty. As we demonstrated, uncertainty is an important
factor in the calculation of pivot probabilities. We introduced a
method for accounting for the uncertainty of predictions in
ballot-by-ballot DSV and suggested some possible approaches to account
for uncertainty in batch DSV. Further work is needed to explore ways
of incorporating voters' attitudes towards risk, the entire set of
voter preferences, or the maturity of the election in the calculation
of uncertainty for batch DSV.

Stability. In many actual voting situations, voters are unlikely
to accept an unstable voting system. We have demonstrated that batch
DSV is stable, assuming the use of an arbitrary factor for uncertainty
and an arbitrary termination condition in case it fails to converge.
However ballot-by-ballot DSV is generally unstable. Further work is
needed to develop a DSV system that is stable without relying on
arbitrary factors. We envision a system that would allow stability to
be adjusted depending on the importance of picking a single winner
versus preventing manipulation or gaining a greater understanding of
the preferences of the electorate.

Dependent alternatives. We have only explored the use of DSV for
decisions between independent alternatives. However, decision-makers
must often select several dependent alternatives. The use of DSV in
decisions involving dependent alternatives should be explored.

Sophisticated strategies. We demonstrated that batch DSV systems
may be manipulable by voters who use sophisticated strategies.
Further work is needed to determine the extent to which sophisticated
strategies are feasible to develop in actual voting situations as well
as the possibility of designing a strategy formulator that can
formulate optimal sophisticated strategies for voters.

Analysis of election and survey results. One of the positive
characteristics of DSV systems is that they provide complete (and
likely sincere) cardinal preference information for the entire
electorate. This data should prove useful to decision-makers using a
DSV survey to guide their decisions, and to analysts interpreting the
results of a DSV election. Further work is necessary to determine
what methods are most useful for interpreting DSV data.

These areas are a few of the many areas where further work might be
focussed. In the process of introducing this new paradigm we have
attempted to sketch a rough overview of this previously unexplored
concept, filling in as many details as is possible during a first
exploration. In trying to map out this paradigm we encountered many
unexpected problems. Happily, we also encountered some unexpectedly
simple solutions. But as we conclude our work, we leave many problems
unsolved, and probably many more undiscovered. It is our hope that
other investigators will find some of these problems worthy of their
attention.